I have no idea why you keep making such statements David. I absolutely do not go by specs alone, and have repeated so and countless occasions. I absolutely do go by performance, soe of which actually lies in the specs if you have any idea how to interpret them, but thats another subject.

The statement was that a pairof 12 inch drivers can have more cone area than a single eighteen. This is not the case. I gave the data. Most high school children can do simple maths and calulate area. I supplied the figures, you can even google it if you wish, upto you. If ken ever posts in this thread I will absolutely take it up him, but we all know that wont happen, but anyway.

I stand by the original response I posted, a pair of 12's will pretty much never have more surface area than an eighteen, and I only say pretty much as we're dealing with cones rather than circles, but no driver cones are that deep.

I'm happy to elaborate further, but thats generally frowned upon by fans and salesmen alike.

I have no idea why you keep making such statements David. I absolutely do not go by specs alone, and have repeated so and countless occasions. I absolutely do go by performance, soe of which actually lies in the specs if you have any idea how to interpret them, but thats another subject. The statement was that a pairof 12 inch drivers can have more cone area than a single eighteen. This is not the case. I gave the data. Most high school children can do simple maths and calulate area. I supplied the figures, you can even google it if you wish, upto you. If ken ever posts in this thread I will absolutely take it up him, but we all know that wont happen, but anyway. I stand by the original response I posted, a pair of 12's will pretty much never have more surface area than an eighteen, and I only say pretty much as we're dealing with cones rather than circles, but no driver cones are that deep. I'm happy to elaborate further, but thats generally frowned upon by fans and salesmen alike.

So have you heard a DXD12012 then Dan?

As you can see by my post, I'm talking about performance, not surface area, so you can babble on all you like about surface areas. I was stating that it could be possible that it could be possible that it would outperform (outdo) an 18" equipped sub.

You're making a bit of a bum point anyway, as 'outperforming' unnamed opposition is meaningless. I imagine a 1" sub from KK would outperform an 18" sub I made from scratch in my garage; that doesn't mean he should put that claim on his website.

If Dan feels that I was being rude, I'm sure he can speak up for himself. You're just trying to stoke things as usual.

I'm sure he can, but this is analogous to a bully saying the victim ought to do something about it and no-one else ought to intervene. I can and will intervene. It is not stoking to try and keep the forum civil.

Btw this doesn't seem to be a case of 'if' you were rude, as your last post was an excuse for your rudeness, not a denial of rudeness.

I hold v1c responsible :grin: as i feel that since yesteday evening he is the reason :read: that we're experiencing the aftermath of the fallout |( (from Central Midlands (wherever in the universe this is) as looks like v1c changed his mind from KK being the best to RK being the best instead

The statement was that a pairof 12 inch drivers can have more cone area than a single eighteen.

If were really going to be this pedantic about a marketing statement there are two errors in your reply

"The statement was that a pairof 12 inch drivers " is actually "please note that 2 KEN KREISEL 12" drivers" the words Ken Kreisel drivers being the relevent part of the statement.

"can have more cone area than a single eighteen" is actually "approaches or equals the cone area of a single 18" driver"

Nowhere does it say more cone area.

If you really feel that strongly about the total injustice of such an obviously false and fabricated statement to even suggest

that Ken Kreisels dual 12" drivers can anyway remotely possibly contend with an 18" driver then Ken has actually posted on a thread on AV forums which i believe you have posted on (same name Moonfly.... supposition on my part) so take it up with him.

It is my choice to believe that Ken Kreisel makes the best subwoofers due to the fact i didn't really think that much of subwoofers till i bought a Kreisel sub and that changed... i've read his history , i've heard him talk on the web and i've listened/owned his products. In short Ken has my admiration and my respect, if that make me a "FANBOY" then yes i am. I'm not forcing anyone else to think the same.

I have now seen the statement on the web page (I didn't before), and if Ken has stated that for the world to see, there must be some truth in it.

Im guessing this is because many larger drivers tend to have oversized roll surrounds (intended for good reasons, but can have negative effects too), which eats into the actual effective driver area. I'm guessing in some cases, the roll surround could account for a couple of inches of the outer diameter of the driver, which could bring down the driver area to about 16". There may be other reasons why Ken has stated this, so I will check with him and report back. I know Ken posts eTh occasionally on 'another channel', but I think he is way too busy to join up on any forum that poses a question related to the brand.

I have no idea why you keep making such statements David. I absolutely do not go by specs alone, and have repeated so and countless occasions. I absolutely do go by performance, soe of which actually lies in the specs if you have any idea how to interpret them, but thats another subject. The statement was that a pairof 12 inch drivers can have more cone area than a single eighteen. This is not the case. I gave the data. Most high school children can do simple maths and calulate area. I supplied the figures, you can even google it if you wish, upto you. If ken ever posts in this thread I will absolutely take it up him, but we all know that wont happen, but anyway. I stand by the original response I posted, a pair of 12's will pretty much never have more surface area than an eighteen, and I only say pretty much as we're dealing with cones rather than circles, but no driver cones are that deep. I'm happy to elaborate further, but thats generally frowned upon by fans and salesmen alike.

So have you heard a DXD12012 then Dan?

As you can see by my post, I'm talking about performance, not surface area, so you can babble on all you like about surface areas. I was stating that it could be possible that it could be possible that it would outperform (outdo) an 18" equipped sub.

The problem here David is my initial post made no comment on this subs performance at all. I only pointed out an error in a posted claim. I have always made a lot of noise about my love the the KK sound, and a search of my history will prove just that, so I do not understand you issue. Unless Ken has found some way to make a 12 inch cone have more surface area than 12 inch cone, then its impossible for a pair of 12's to match or come close to a single 18. Of course, if you cherry pick your example, it might be possible. Some drivers are classed as 18" if sing a 12 inch basket, but the driver itself obviously then has to be less to fit inside, and of course you have to deduct for the roll surround. If Kens drivers use a true 12" cone (thus having a roll surround beyond the 12" and a basket closer to 13"), and you pick a claimed 18" driver that really isnt (i.e, a pretty cheap poor driver), then in theory such claims could be possible, but I always frown on marketting data derrived that way.

All things being equal, a pair of 12's will not match an 18 in cone area, and you cannot get away from that fact, I even gave the rough area of the drivers for everyone to see. If all things arent equal, then no comparison should be made, that is misleading.